Grassland vertical height heterogeneity predicts flower and bee diversity: an UAV photogrammetric approach.

The ecosystem services offered by pollinators are vital for supporting agriculture and ecosystem functioning, with bees standing out as especially valuable contributors among these insects. Threats such as habitat fragmentation, intensive agriculture, and climate change are contributing to the decline of natural bee populations. Remote sensing could be a useful tool to identify sites of high diversity before investing into more expensive field survey. In this study, the ability of Unoccupied Aerial Vehicles (UAV) images to estimate biodiversity at a local scale has been assessed while testing the concept of the Height Variation Hypothesis (HVH). This hypothesis states that the higher the vegetation height heterogeneity (HH) measured by remote sensing information, the higher the vegetation vertical complexity and the associated species diversity. In this study, the concept has been further developed to understand if vegetation HH can also be considered a proxy for bee diversity and abundance. We tested this approach in 30 grasslands in the South of the Netherlands, where an intensive field data campaign (collection of flower and bee diversity and abundance) was carried out in 2021, along with a UAV campaign (collection of true color-RGB-images at high spatial resolution). Canopy Height Models (CHM) of the grasslands were derived using the photogrammetry technique "Structure from Motion" (SfM) with horizontal resolution (spatial) of 10 cm, 25 cm, and 50 cm. The accuracy of the CHM derived from UAV photogrammetry was assessed by comparing them through linear regression against local CHM LiDAR (Light Detection and Ranging) data derived from an Airborne Laser Scanner campaign completed in 2020/2021, yielding an [Formula: see text] of 0.71. Subsequently, the HH assessed on the CHMs at the three spatial resolutions, using four different heterogeneity indices (Rao's Q, Coefficient of Variation, Berger-Parker index, and Simpson's D index), was correlated with the ground-based flower and bee diversity and bee abundance data. The Rao's Q index was the most effective heterogeneity index, reaching high correlations with the ground-based data (0.44 for flower diversity, 0.47 for bee diversity, and 0.34 for bee abundance). Interestingly, the correlations were not significantly influenced by the spatial resolution of the CHM derived from UAV photogrammetry. Our results suggest that vegetation height heterogeneity can be used as a proxy for large-scale, standardized, and cost-effective inference of flower diversity and habitat quality for bees.

A quixotic view of spatial bias in modelling the distribution of species and their diversity.

Ecological processes are often spatially and temporally structured, potentially leading to autocorrelation either in environmental variables or species distribution data. Because of that, spatially-biased in-situ samples or predictors might affect the outcomes of ecological models used to infer the geographic distribution of species and diversity. There is a vast heterogeneity of methods and approaches to assess and measure spatial bias; this paper aims at addressing the spatial component of data-driven biases in species distribution modelling, and to propose potential solutions to explicitly test and account for them. Our major goal is not to propose methods to remove spatial bias from the modelling procedure, which would be impossible without proper knowledge of all the processes generating it, but rather to propose alternatives to explore and handle it. In particular, we propose and describe three main strategies that may provide a fair account of spatial bias, namely: (i) how to represent spatial bias; (ii) how to simulate null models based on virtual species for testing biogeographical and species distribution hypotheses; and (iii) how to make use of spatial bias - in particular related to sampling effort - as a leverage instead of a hindrance in species distribution modelling. We link these strategies with good practice in accounting for spatial bias in species distribution modelling.